January 8, 2008

Look, I said it on Bloggingheads: The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism was a cover for racism. Listen beginning at 8:07 [ADDED: You have to begin in the Ron Paul segment — here — and then go to 8:07]: "I feel like the people who are so enamored with those states' rights positions and that libertarian position... Coming from the South... an older person... who grew up in the segregated South... How do I know he's not a racist? ... I find it offensive, the positions he's taking, but maybe it's the pretty face that you put on the position that is, if not really racist, just insensitive about race?"

[L]ong before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling.... And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul....

What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics....

Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks."...

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters....

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke....

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters....

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better...

Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s....

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society...

Read the whole thing.

No word yet from Andrew Sullivan, who endorsed Ron Paul as the Republican nominee back here, with what now looks like exquisitely bad effusion: "[T]hese are principles that made me a conservative in the first place... He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds."

ADDED: Based on reading the comments here, I realize I need to stress what I was talking about in that Bloggingheads episode. You can listen to the whole segment. But I'm not saying that every older person who grew up in the South should be suspected of racism. I'm saying that a person who espouses the ideas that Ron Paul does — opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blaming Abraham Lincoln for starting the Civil War and thinking it should never have been fought — makes me want to know more, and when he is also a man of a certain age from the South, that tweaks my suspicion up a notch. I don't think all libertarians or advocates of "states' rights" are racists, but I think some of them are, and many of them are insufficiently concerned about racial inequity (or they would care to make an effort to explain, when they take these positions, why they are willing to risk unfortunate consequences). Finally, I read in the comments that I grew up in the Northeast. This is not so. I grew up in Delaware, and, while I did not think of it as North or South — it was a border state in the Civil War — every black person I have ever talked to about this has assured me — sometimes after recovering from a laughing fit — that the South starts in Delaware.

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin....

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically [sic] taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

I don't quite understand. Writing went out under your name, but you didn't pay much attention to it? Why not? A casual conclusion is that you generally agreed and enjoyed having your name on it. Are you saying your name was appropriated and the whole thing was a fraud? It doesn't seem so.

AND: Andrew Sullivan says: "I also want to reiterate that those of us who supported the Ron Paul movement find these sentiments despicable." Why are you speaking for others, Andrew? You are not a native American. Why do you assume you channel the beliefs of others?

152 comments:

I'll say it again- he's far-right. Nice to see people that matter are finally picking up on that.

A movement is judged by its followers. When I see troofers, conspiracy theorists, anti- semites, and real life Nazis supporting the guy, that makes me wonder. Once I looked into it, it was obvious that it's another far-right conspiracy-driven candidacy.

Why the Republicans let this guy stay so long is a question I'd like answered. The Democrats will use this, and they are absolutely right to do so.

What's funny is that I never would have cared except the online Paul presence is so annoying.

And why he has never distanced himself from the neo-nazi supporters. That is the thing that has made me really uncomfortable with the man.

A few of his quoted newsletter remarks actually sound like accurate criticisms, but if you fire a shotgun downrange the target is apt to get hit one or twice. The remark about the Civil War being a mistake really makes it hard to see this as other than bigotry, though.

At last it has been revealed that the head sheep is really a wolf after all! I feel bad for some of Paul's followers but sometimes life isn't fair, kids. Feeling empassioned for a candidate does not a viable President make!

Ummm, this is The New Republic. Ron Paul is one of the Republicans who trigger my gag reflex (Huckabee is the other) but I'll really believe this when we get some third-party to look at the original sources.

Damn you, TNR, for sullying your reputation so much that I have to my gloat.

I subscribed to RP's rather expensive newsletter for a year in the early 90s. I'm glad that somebody is noticing what was in it. The main thing I remember was rumor-mongering about the new currency, as if it was going to track your every transaction and take the last shred of freedom away. Nutty stuff. Surely some copies survive of this stuff. Let's publish it and ask some hard questions. It was a small newsletter, so RP can't shift the blame on this one.

No matter what you think you ought to reflect on how other slave holding societies ended slavery. Brazil did it later than we did and without a civil war. Other countries did so successfully without mass murder and destruction. For the rest of you guilt by association types, you might remember what members of the Democratic Party used to say about blacks (along with their paramilitary wing the KKK).

"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves."--William Jennings Bryan, 1923Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.

And ...

"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925President, 1933-45

And ...

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

The problem with the far-right and the far-left is they are indistinguishable. The same prejudices and paranoias guide their philosophies. This is not to confuse either with mainstream liberal or conservative (I'm very conservative; used to be very liberal). A commenter at JustOneMinute noted that the same NH neighbors with sky-high Dean yard signs 4 years ago are displaying sky-high Paul signs now. Far-right and far-left -- the same.

For a long time I detected a strong anti-Semitic strain in RP and his supporters; I wasn't looking for racist and homophobic strains but they don't surprise me.

BTW one should quit throwing the word "Nazi" around like it's a far-right thing. "Nazi," a strain of fascism, is a lefty thing, as Jonah Goldberg has so aptly explained. Nazis believe in government control of everything - something both RP and regular conservatives reject. Who believes in government control? Libs and lefties.

So Ron Paul is part of this huge racist conspiracy where he is says he admires MLK and Ghandi as stewards of civil disobedience, but really believes he was a pedofile. If they actually had some video or proof of him saying these remarks I would buy it, but its a newletter written decades ago. This is just a smear released right before the primaries to hurt Ron Paul. Isnt he more tolerant of gays than the other republicans. He wasnt trying to pass an ammendment BANNING gay marriage. He doesnt want federal drug laws that discriminate against blacks. I just dont see how a decade old newletter should explain Pauls ideology better than his voting record.

As I've said manytimesbefore, that he's right about several issues doesn't change the basic reality that he's a total loon. That he may also turn out to be a racist loon makes it even worse, but isn't entirely unexpected (although I would dissent from the reasoning that says that if you're opposed to X, it must mean you're opposed to it for reason Y - that seems an attempt to tar anyone who has certain beliefs for legitimate reasons with the same brush).

Yeah, I'm a subscriber to the Larid Wilcox and John George definition of extremism. The trouble is that no one else is, so I say far-right because everyone knows what I mean.

What amazes me is that in this age of the internet, no one picked up on this for so long. It took a freeper to pick this up first, and only because he found some paper copies. The internet is extremely limited in time. It gives an illusion of having all information, when in reality in only has a fraction.

Peg - it comes into coherency once you abandon the right-left scale, which has several deep flaws, and look at it through a Hayekian lens of planning vs. liberty. Goldwater said that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, but as we see well-personified in Paul, you can go too far towards the liberty side of the scale as to the statist side.

Paul was a "flight Surgeon" in the US Air Force not Army and the designation "surgeon" in that title doesn't neccessarily mean you are qualifed to perform surgery like it would out in the civilian world.

Oh, one more thing -- I would like to clarify something about Paul's politics and Ann's perception of them.

An obsession with "states' rights" is NOT a libertarian political position. Libertarians don't favor state governments over federal; they favor individual rights over government authority. If the federal government forces a state government to stop oppressing people, libertarians should see that as a victory -- provided that the federal use of force isn't worse than the state oppression is.

That's why I think that reasonable libertarians can agree that the Civil Rights Act (or something like it) was necessary, but still think that it isn't necessary today -- in the 1960s, oppression of blacks was a much worse violation of individual freedom than the federal intervention was. Today it seems clear to me that the reverse is true; we spend countless dollars and man-hours dealing with the vagaries of racial law and get no apparent benefit from it.

Althouse might at least consider not going in whole hog with TNR. Plenty of people are concerned about things like holograms or even RFID chips in dollar bills, and that doesn't make them "far-right", nor do they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Nazis. Even one of Rudy's current advisors warned against a NationalID card, way back in 1986.

Let me suggest that much of the article is based on things written by people other than Ron Paul, and that the author's intepretation of "far-right" might be more than a bit skewed.

Ron Paul is stupid and ignorant, so it's no surprise he believes stupid and ignorant things--he doesn't believe in evolution either. Still, he strikes me as the candidate most likely to leave me alone, and I have to give him points for that.

Re the Civil War, I don't think it's necessarily racist to believe that Constitutionally, the South had every right to secede. In fact, I think I can see secession hiding in one of those penumbras right now. And Paul isn't the only one who thought it wasn't worth fighting a war to end slavery...that was also Lincoln's view. He fought the war to preserve the Union--i.e. his own power. And he would have been right at home with Paul's views on race.

Ann, your liberal bigotry against the South is overwhelmingly offensive. I don't like Paul and don't doubt that he is everything nasty Kirchick says, however, as a Southern woman of your age (can we call that older?) who grew up in the segregated South and who supports state's rights and tends to libertarian ideas I guess I'm a probable racist in your eyes. Okay. That is your generalization to embrace. All I'm saying is that your prejudice is obvious and offensive.

Re the Civil War, I don't think it's necessarily racist to believe that Constitutionally, the South had every right to secede.

Given that they fired the first shots of the war, the question of whether or not they had the right to secede is fairly meaningless. They were either (a) rebellious states or (b) a hostile foreign power launching a war of aggression against the United States. Either way, they needed a good ass kicking.

Apparently, disavowal and a polite apology were enough for Sullivan. Hard to believe I ever gave him any credit for being rational or independent.

Why would he be caught dead or alive in the same venue.

Exactly right. You can't just say, sorry, I have a blog called "Althouse," but despite the fact that you can't prove otherwise, I didn't write all of those blog entries, at least not the ones you consider heinous, and they weren't really my views anyway, they were just meant to look like my views and I profited from their distribution.

Ridiculous. The denial the Paul-fanatics are demonstrating is fascinating, psychologically. And now Sullivan piles on.

Revenant said..."An obsession with 'states' rights' is NOT a libertarian political position. Libertarians don't favor state governments over federal; they favor individual rights over government authority. "

That's right - federalism and libertarianism address related but distinct questions: libtertarianism is concerned with "should government do X"; federalism is about "which government should do X." (Moreover, that's really something of a shorthand - federalism is primarily a legal question of "which government should do X under our system of government; it echoes the normative version of the same question which is addressed by subsidiarity, which you'll often find public choice theory proponents touting).

madawaskan said..."Ya there are some that try to tar Goldwater with racism-he was far from it. His idea was that you could not dictate laws or legislate from the bench or else you would be artificially enforcing them."

Well, he opposed the Civil Rights Act, too, on the grounds that he thought it was unconstitutional. I think his reading of the Constitution was wrong (or at least, I think it answered the question using an invalid criterion, viz. original intent of the drafters vs. original public meaning of the text, and was thus mistaken), but I don't doubt his good faith in reaching that conclusion.

If you watch C-SPAN, the Paulites who call in are crazy, and all seem to have read the same script, except there is no script and they're all just the same frequency of crazy. I wonder where these revelations leave Ilya Somin.

Well, he opposed the Civil Rights Act, too, on the grounds that he thought it was unconstitutional. I think his reading of the Constitution was wrong (or at least, I think it answered the question using an invalid criterion, viz. original intent of the drafters vs. original public meaning of the text, and was thus mistaken), but I don't doubt his good faith in reaching that conclusion.

I forget the station, but Ron Paul was asked anout his racist and supremist supporters. His response was so what. He said, in effect, that they had a right to vote and support who they wanted and that he would take every vote he could get. He also related that he had supporters from the extreme far left.

Ron Paul is just trying to appeal to the real "disenfranchised" voters; those whose fantasies border on lunacy.

This PR stuff sounds like the Clintons's usual defense: I didn't really do/say/or write any of that, even tho it went out under my name &, hey, it's old stuff anyway & let's move on, & basically I had a part in all the Clinton Presidency that was good & none in what was bad.

Paul's people seem to be saying that he agrees with the stuff which represents good judgment & really doesn't agree with the stuff which kinda doesn't seem so good when scrutinized by mine enemies.

Maybe he should weep! Or bite his lower lip!

From the Release:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts...a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically (sic) taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

I would tend to buy Paul's exlanation. I went to college with his son Rob and I never heard anything close to that ever come out of his mouth -- and Rob was an articulate spokesman back then. I wouldn't vote for Paul in a million years and think he is a whack job at times -- but not a racist.

He is way too lax about with whom he allows to speak for his bandwagon. He may be a racist for all I know, but I don't think so.

"Ya there are some that try to tar Goldwater with racism-he was far from it. His idea was that you could not dictate laws or legislate from the bench or else you would be artificially enforcing them."

It's worth pointing out, though, that Goldwater also was also a bit of an admirer of Ian Smith, the last prime minister of Rhodesia under White rule. There are arguments to be made that Smith was better than his successors, such as the execrable Mugabe, and a number of Black politicians in Zimbabwe have given limited praise to Smith. But it's hard not to notice that in the 1960s, when Rhodesia attempted to secede from the British Empire (via the Unilateral Declaration of Independence) precisely because of White opposition to majority rule, Goldwater spoke in support of the White minority ruler. This is . . . not something I'd expect a conscientious libertarian to do.

To be perfectly honest, I admire what Goldwater did for the Republican party and for America, but I'm not sure how far from racism he really was.

I discuss a few issues with the article here. Perhaps someone can answer the question about 1990, and hopefully everyone will agree that that's either yet another serious TNR "mistake" or an intentional attempt to deceive.

As a liberal who grew up Jewish (and converted to Mormonism) and who disagrees entirely with Ron Paul on a whole range of issues and fundamental philosophies, I have to take issue with your characterization of southern libertarians and come to Christy's defense:

No doubt, there are plenty of Southern libertarians who do in fact use it as a cover for racism. However, if you accept as a premise that it is possible for a person to be a libertarian without being a racist (and in a pure libertarian sense that is certainly possible), then why is it possible if they live in Michigan but not if they live in Mississippi?

One is remined of Flannery O'Connor's famous quote,:

"anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic"

Madison Man asks an interesting question--with a paper trail like Paul's, where was the MSM? It couldnt be because Paul's anti-war/isolationist rhetoric was consistent with some of their views? Was it because he was the real anti-war candidate?

For those familiar with Libertarianism, it should come as no surprise that Libertarians believe that the only proper use of a military force is to maintain the security of the homeland.

I read some of the Paulbots' comments at the Pajamas Media site. The rabid defense of him is fascinating. Half of his defenders are using the "ghostwriter"/"he didn't write or approve of this these comments" defense and the other half are saying that he was right with all those comments.

And no internal squabble as to which side is right? What a strange cult of personality RP has cultivated here.

Now I understand that the opinions Paul expressed may not be "PC", and I'm not a Paulista for a number of reasons.

However, I lived in the area in 1992. The anger expressed by this opinion piece after the riots was understandable, especially to someone who saw the whole situation in context. Complaints of racist oppression as an excuse for mayhem, after years of attempts to rectify past racism with money and legislation here in California really did anger a lot of people, not just the "far right" bogeymen being invoked here.

Furthermore, I'm sure that Ron Paul understands what a quotation mark is, even if you don't. When he uses quotation marks around "civil rights", that implies that he is not denouncing civil rights for black Americans, but rather, preferential treatment in the name of "rights". There was a strong notion, in the early '90s, at the height of gang violence in Los Angeles, that, in the attempt to rectify past wrongs, heinous crimes by African-Americans were not being prosecuted, nor sentences doled out as they should have been. Was this feeling justified? I don't know -- it's surely not the whole picture, regardless. However, this feeling was not confined to some group of fringe "far right" bigots.

Where are the comments about Jews and conspiracies? Where's the animus towards gays, and the conspiracy paranoia?

Where are the quotes to back this up?

Frankly, taken in the context of the LA riots and the emotions surrounding them at the time, the quotes here are not nearly as much of a "gotcha" as Ann makes it sound. And many people had concerns about the real future of South Africa. Apartheid truly did have to be ended, and should have been ended years earlier. But South Africa has not exactly been without its problems since.

Some quotes about the Jews and the conspiracies, and maybe an actual quote praising David Duke, would be far more damning.

Like I said, I'm no Paulista. But the actual quotes here are not exactly earth-shattering.

This isn't a new discovery; I read on a local blogger's site (righthandthief.blogspot.com) about these newsletters in November, and hecited a Daily Kos post from May. I'm glad to see it getting more attention.

The New Republic is using Paul's occasionally anti-black comments to paint an entire chunk of the web and American society as "angry white men".

Some of the supposedly damning quotes from Paul are pretty standard diatribe among various interest groups. E.g. his comments about "Bolsheviks" is gentle compared to what is common on the internet conservative blogs.

As far as I am concerned, The New Republic is no better than Ron Paul. Not a supporter of either.

I read through most of the supposedly damning quotes here: http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php

They come from the New Republic's "exposé".

Frankly, most of these damning quotes are simply opinions that don't gibe with the standard set of beliefs that the New Republic reader demographic shares. Is it so shocking when someone points out that, around the time of the LA riots in 1992, black children were growing up in Los Angeles with a hatred of "whitey"? Was the idea of prosecuting violent juvenile gang members as adults when their crimes were especially severe "racist"? Seems to me it was a mainstream viewpoint, even a majority viewpoint.

I encourage people to read through them, think about when they were written, and ask how damning they really are.

An example: “The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.”

Now I suppose, if you're a New Republic reader, you might read that as, "Man, you let 'em into the washroom and next thing you know, they'll kill us and burn down our cities!" But that's not what it says.

Again, I don't think I would vote for Ron Paul for President, come hell or high water. However, I don't think he really deserves to be painted as a klansman for expressing his opinion during volatile times. And it seems to me that Bill Clinton went for welfare reform not long afterward, so again, the idea that our welfare system helped create more poverty and violence was not exactly confined to the "far right".

(Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.)

Cripe as I first explained he was a-flight surgeon.

Now the military might use it in some archaic sense but you can be a flight surgeon and not be qualified to be a surgeon.

It is not used the in the same sense as in the civilian vernacular.

Her is an explanation of it from wiki-

A flight surgeon is a specialized medical officer in the military. Flight surgeons are osteopathic or medical doctors. Flight surgeons are primarily responsible for the medical treatment and certification of aviation personnel e.g. pilots, aircrew members and air traffic controllers. In most branches of the U.S military, flight surgeons also have public health and occupational and preventative medicine roles. They are often called upon to provide medical consultation/advice as part of an investigation board into an aviation mishap, and they give routine medical exams to aviators. A periodic pilot exam is called a flight physical.wiki

He's a frickin' OB/GYN that can qualify you to be a "flight surgeon" but that does not qualify you to be an Air Force surgeon.

I know it's stupid but damn I hate the gulf between the military community and the civilian one.

They can't get this right but this is who Liberals believe to be the "experts" when it comes to Iraq.

This thread is pretty interesting to me as a former moderate who was seeking conservatism and stumbled upon libertarianism along the way...

I think the issue of race is something that the GOP has to come to terms with. It's not just a "Ron Paul" phenomenon, or that his 'cult' / bots are quick to find excuses for the language. I can comfortably and proudly defend some of the anti-war and pro-liberty arguments, but I won't bother defending him on his words re: race and bigotry.

Anyway, the GOP does have a poor history when it comes to race. Conservatives always seem to be on the wrong side of the civil rights debates. Abraham Lincoln aside, liberals and moderates believe the GOP is a big 'front' for bigotry.

Whether it's anti-Woman, anti-"Negro", anti-Mexican, anti-Gay, anti-Atheist (especially now), the GOP seems to harbor American bigots. I'm not saying all conservatives are like that, else I wouldn't have sought conservatism myself, but it is a stigma that the GOP needs to shed.

I understand the policy arguments, but it doesn't help that -on the issues- Republicans are:

Against AA, against Roe, anti-welfare (poor people are disproportionately minority), pro-Christian (anti-everything else that isn't Christian)and on immigration, (I get this "Send all those filthy lepers and their children back to where they came from!" vibe)and retarded when it comes to the Education problem in America.

This is in large part a 'perception' problem, but there is some truth to the accusations of bigotry and elitism. At some point the party will have to confront the issue. I have to admit that reading a conservative blog and seeing conservatives argue against racism really gives me hope for the GOP. It may sound dumb to all of you, because you probably think everyone that thinks this way is a "paranoid liberal hippie loser", but I see this conversation as showing progress in the conservative mindset.

When I see Barack Obama heralded in ways by Fox News that even I think are over-the-top, it feels good to see that maybe America is coming around. Maybe, racism is dying now that bigger problems are beginning to surface in the world.

Not everyone thinks racism is even an issue anymore. I've felt it throughout my life and I still see it as a problem for our country. During my time in Madison, (I'm an American of Mexican descent)I was called a "spic" and "chink" a few times by white guys who didn't know me. Also, I was occasionally followed in stores by State Street store managers. I was 26 or 27 at the time, so it wasn't an issue of age. Despite the awkward situations, I don't fault them, it's hard to break away from personal fears -- some of which have been learned from childhood.

People of color tend to expect racism from non-colored people. They rarely share this sentiment, because how could you really? When I was living in Ithaca, NY it was somewhat similar, but a lot more staring. Yet, as I look back, I always remember Madison, WI as the BEST experience I've had in my life. A few racist incidents aside, in terms of culture, diversity, lifestyle, and generosity of the locals, I've never seen anything like it.

Sorry for getting a bit personal there... but race is one are where no political candidate can screw around on. I'm not sure how this Ron Paul thing will play out. I am disappointed that the one glimmer of hope I felt emanating from the GOP was this Ron Paul guy--- an idea, of a "better America" and less corporate greed and injustice in the world.

I have to admit, that idea has lost some of its appeal. One last thing,... today when Bill Clinton said "Barack Obama" was living a fairy tale, it was really difficult for me (as an idealist) to listen to -- especially because I love(d) Bill Clinton. Now, all of the 'dreamy' candidates are being massacred by the nasty and hateful ones and I don't like it one bit because it puts us back at the "pick the lesser of evils" mode of choosing Presidents, and that's a terrible way to look at life.

Ann, you might note that Sullivan took the time to request a response from the Paul campaign, which he got and responded to.

Your willingness to jump on Paul as a racist bigot without further investigation shows your bias.

Now, I like what Ron Paul is saying on the stump, but definitely think he does have to rehash and address this past issue again for everyone. Paul claims moral responsibility for the stuff written under his name, but does not claim that the stuff you find objectionable - the racist and anti-gay bigotry - as his words. One is left to judge whether this is true or not, but the hate speech certainly doesn't jive with Paul's message of today at all.

At least Sullivan, who you criticize, took the time to find out what's really going on here. You, being your usual intellectually lazy self, didn't.

Also, I think this explains why some of Paul's supporters really are nuts. Obviously they think this stuff is the real Ron Paul.

Given that they fired the first shots of the war, the question of whether or not they had the right to secede is fairly meaningless. They were either (a) rebellious states or (b) a hostile foreign power launching a war of aggression against the United States. Either way, they needed a good ass kicking.

A classic case of "to the victor go the spoils". At least up until the Civil War, a better argument could be made that if states entered the Union voluntarily, they could leave it the same way.

Anyway, the GOP does have a poor history when it comes to race. Conservatives always seem to be on the wrong side of the civil rights debates. Abraham Lincoln aside, liberals and moderates believe the GOP is a big 'front' for bigotry.

Ok, let's talk reality, instead of wishful thinking on the part of those on the left.

On the Republican side:- party founded to abolish slavery- went to war to do just that.- did it.- passed 13th, 14th, 15th Amdts.- passed original Civil Rights Acts- attempted reconstruction- provided majority of support for passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Only Senator voting Nay was Goldwater.

On the Democratic side:- founded by slave holders- went to war to keep slavery- even those in the North supported slavery and opposed war- opposed Civil Rights Amdts. and laws.- opposed Reconstruction- imposed Jim Crow- resegregated military and imposed Separate but Equal in U.S. govt. employment (Wilson)- Almost all KKK members belonged up through at least LBJ.- Which meant that almost all uppidy blacks lynched were done so by Democrats.- Almost all of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats (the exception in the Senate being Goldwater).- President Pro Tem of the Senate today is a former (?) KKK official.

As I see it, the Democratic Party has been in existence for roughly 200 years, and some 80% of that time actively practiced militant racism against African-Americans. And it still can't eliminate the last vestiges of that by removing a former KKK member from its senior ranks.

Bush tried to temper it-but the internet blew it up out of proportion and I think the Republican candidates that over catered to it made a mistake-and they are being eliminated one by one.

Tancredo-gone.Duncan Hunter- buh bye.Thompson-on the ropes.

Some of us tried to tell them to quit following that Malin race baiter but the likes of Mickey Kaus still link to Polipundit a site too racist for most of his readers.

He purged over there all not as rabid as he and his readership went plummeting right with it from 40,000 to 6,000 despite the juicy links from Kaus at Slate.com.

Just exactly what is that guy's major malfunction? Kaus?

Polipundit btw isn't even American.

If Republicans were all the racists that they are being made out to be I don't think they would have fled that Polipundit site by the thouseands and I think that tancredo would have fared a little bit better.

"Against AA, against Roe, anti-welfare (poor people are disproportionately minority), pro-Christian (anti-everything else that isn't Christian)and on immigration, (I get this "Send all those filthy lepers and their children back to where they came from!" vibe)and retarded when it comes to the Education problem in America."

AA as currently defined? Absolutely.

against Roe?A number of people consider it a bad decision. Both left and right. How is this a racial issue?

anti-welfare?Depends. How would you classify those who believe getting someone a job and education is better than a perpetual handout? Racist?

pro-Christian?How so? Many of us are agnostic. What laws specifiably have been passed that were pro christian?

on immigration, (I get this "Send all those filthy lepers and their children back to where they came from!" vibe)?perhaps you shouldnt get your "vibe" from kos or huffington post. Illegal immigration is what we are supposedly speaking of, and yes. Many of us are against it. Why do you feel this country should have no control of its borders while every other country does?'

Have you gone back when the civil rights bills were being voted on and checked to see which party supported them and which party did not?

Okay, this is what I have to say. If a $500 dollar donation and some letters that had his name on them 20 + years ago is what you are worried about then you need to do a head check!What you should be worried about is supporting the troops that have been or are in the war and are coming forward stating their support for Ron Paul! They know what the war is about and how it is going better than anyone. They want Dr. Paul as their Commander! But I guess when the people say they support their troops it is as much lip service as the other Candidates that say they are for the Constitution but turn around and vote against it. I can now lower my standard of the people.

For decades, a US Congressman published, or allowed to be published, a newsletter with his name on the banner, many of which are racist and bigoted. The articles are almost always anonymous, but what fool wouldn't ascribe them to the publisher? Let's say they were attributed to, oh, A. Hitler. In his magnanimity and respect for the First Amendment, said publisher offers up racist, bigoted tripe for years.

How can you possibly excuse this? Let's try...

1. Ron Paul is an idiot---nope--he's an MD.2. Ron Paul is hopelessy naive--maybe, but you don't get elected multiple times to the HR without getting your hands dirty.3. Ron Paul is so careless as to disqualify himself from high office--warmer.4. Ron Paul is a closet racist and bigot--could well be.5. Ron Paul is a nut--bing, bing, bing, bing..

"They want Dr. Paul as their Commander! But I guess when the people say they support their troops it is as much lip service as the other Candidates that say they are for the Constitution but turn around and vote against it. I can now lower my standard of the people."

Ever read "Starship Troopers?" And PLEASE don't tell me no, but that you saw the movie.

Jeff asked, Have you gone back when the civil rights bills were being voted on and checked to see which party supported them and which party did not?

Which party did and which party did not? Did it correspond to party so neatly, as you imply?

Of course not. From Wikipedia:

Votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1965By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

As you can see, it was a regional phenomenon. Opposition was largely based in the South. As you most certainly are aware, Jeff, after the Democrats embraced civil rights, the southern racists left the Democratic Party and became Republicans. That's why the once "solid South" which voted reliably Democratic is now reliably Republican.

after the Democrats embraced civil rights, the southern racists left the Democratic Party and became Republicans.

Robert Byrd is a Republican?

Question: if the racists left the Democratic Party in the 1960s, how come there are still so many racists in the Democratic Party? It remains the only party calling for programs of institutional racism at the federal and state level.

"That's why the once "solid South" which voted reliably Democratic is now reliably Republican."

Coming from one of the states that you are incorrectly implying is Northern, I consider you a bigot. Maybe, just maybe, they're "reliably Republican" because they're tired of the Democrats. OTOH, I know many people who vote Democrat reflexively, so who knows?

What was said was the Republicans were always on the wrong side of civil rights. What you just showed were a bunch of Republicans on the right side of civil rights. What you claim, that all Democrats that were racists left the party and joined the Republican party and now all Republicans, or a majority of them are now racists is just not true. You raise an impossible bar for Republicans to "prove" we are not racists.

If we are against AA no matter the reason-racist.

Apparently if we are against Roe-Racist.

Against illegal immigration? Racist.

Etc. The only way my party can prove it isn't racist is for us all to become liberal democrats. Which means then we would have to believe all black people must think the same, and tread the same democratic line. Ironic, isn't it?

Part of the Libertarian critique of welfare spending is that parastic reliance on government tends to produce a degraded, dangerous, low-skill society.

I am not surprised when Libertarians point to the LA riots or the excrable conduct of the NOLA parasites as proof of what they are talking about.

It - self reliance uplifts people far more than Welfare Statism - is also an argument that is accepted by much of the black middle class and in American history was the great debate among blacks.

On one side you had people like Booker T Washington pointing to low-crime flourishing black communities where blacks had all the professional, merchant, middleman, trades positions serving their community. Saying that education, family discipline, & self-reliance was the path to uplift and prosperity.

On the other side you had socialists like WEB Dubois that said only the largess of Government was able to compensate for historical victimology. He won powerful allies with Jewish Communists that sought to act as mentors and "brains" to the downtrodden blacks in return for their votes. Those radical Jews set up the NAACP, black unions run by Jewish organizers, and other communist fronts.

Unfortunately for the country, in the late 50s and early 60s, the Civil Rights "spokesblacks" rejected Washington, Carver and that faction as "Toms" - in favor of more laws and free money from government.

In the next 40 years, out of wedlock births went from 30% to 70%. Crime and drug use in black communities exploded from being a problem to a full crisis. Pre-Welfare State Blacks once committed murder, rape, robbery at a rate twice that of whites and other minorities. Now it is 6X and blacks commit the majority of rapes, murders, and armed robberies in the USA.The disaster libertarians warned of - dissolution of social bonds - did not just affect fathers being in homes - instead of blacks being in the trades, merchants, and professional ranks in their communities - outsiders now occupy those positions more than blacks while black male joblessness runs 50-80% is some of the worst black underclass ghettos.

And the NOLA parasites sit and watch as most of the Katrina rebuilding is being done by white contractors and Mexican workers.

Maybe Obama is a path to a new course for blacks, putting the last of the Civil Rights "old dinosaur bulls" who have dominated black society for 50 years on the premise of black victimology and government handouts and a litany of excuses for low black achievement - on the fossil scrap heap where they belong.

Maybe a new phase of black history is starting. No excuse for underclass scorning of education and horrific crime rates and dysfunctionalism. The black middle class and prfessionals reengaging those they abandoned to government care. Maybe the dream of Booker T will come back and supplant Jesse Jackson's dream.

Okay, this is what I have to say. If a $500 dollar donation and some letters that had his name on them 20 + years ago is what you are worried about then you need to do a head check!

"That was 20 years ago" just doesn't work as a defense of Paul's lending his name to a bunch of nutty racists. Their beliefs were repugnant to all decent people then, too. Besides, "I apologized for hanging out with racists and nuts" doesn't work when you're still hanging out with racists and nuts. Absolution requires not just that you acknowledge your mistakes, but that you stop committing them!

One more thing saying "it was just $500" doesn't work, either. Either the money is significant to Paul, in which case he can honestly be said to be receiving significant support from racists -- or it isn't, which raises the question of why Paul is willing to accept donations from those people when the money isn't even important to him.

The "vibe" you get may be because certain policy issues have been presented as racist because, you know, there is no answer to charges of racism.

Most of my life I've been told that the Democratic party is pro-woman and pro-women's issues. WTF? Because I somehow need to be taken care of?

In 2004 there were pages upon pages of commentary written about why certain groups "voted against their interests" and how it was all because they were stupid Christians (in so many words) and never caught on that MY INTERESTS might not be that I want a hand-out just because I'm poor.

Bad economic policies are bad for me EVEN when those policies would put money in my pocket.

Libertarian ideals value liberty and personal responsibility. I don't *want* to be taken care of. I find it insulting to have people tell me that I *need* to be taken care of most particularly *because* I am female.

Add "because I'm black" or any other group and it's pretty easy to show how "I'm here to help you" can, itself, be racist motivated. It doesn't *have* to be, but it could be just as easily because people who want to "help" view blacks or women or anyone else as less capable, and policies that seem a bit harsh are the ones that *aren't* racist (or sexist or whatever) because they are based on the belief that people ARE capable.

Neither sort of policy is inherently more racist or less racist than the other.

By the way, I am not trying to imply that being anti-AA / roe / etc makes you anti-woman /anti-black etc.

It's the issues on a whole, combined with the record on civil rights, that gives off 'that vibe'. I'm trying to explain to you where the liberal sentiment comes from. It's also a reason why African Americans and Mexican Americans shy away from the GOP even though they tend to highly value conservative principles.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that it is a sentiment that is very prevalent among minorities, liberals and some progressives. IMO, it is relevant to the party's image.

Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

Tue Jan 8, 2008

ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paulissued the following statement:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and donot represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have neveruttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. thatwe should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage andhigh ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights ofindividuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on theday of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, anewsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Severalwriters contributed to the product. For over a decade, I havepublically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attentionto what went out under my name."

And the NOLA parasites sit and watch as most of the Katrina rebuilding is being done by white contractors and Mexican workers.

Cedarford doesn't live here and he doesn't know shit about who is and isn't working to rebuild the city. There are people of all colors working on their own homes and businesses, in every neighborhood. There are contractors and workers of all colors working on these tasks as well. If you need your 18th century plaster-on-lathe walls and ceilings, or your custom-forged ironwork restored, well, good luck finding a white contractor to do it. Those skills have been handed down among a very few black Creole families over generations. They're very busy these days.

If you drive around New Orleans, in any direction, you'll see this for yourself. I stand witness because I see this every day. Cedarford doesn't live here. He knows nothing.

Workers, black and white, are busy all over the city, joined by kids (of all colors) from colleges and high schools all around the country, and others of all stripes who make volunteering a part of their vacation plans. They work alongside the smaller and smaller ranks of Latin American (not just Mexican, but what do you expect from an idiot like Cedarford--they're brown so we'll call 'em all Mexicans) immigrant workers. Many of those who swept in during the first year for gutting and roofing have moved on to other work sites, but many have stayed and are welcome.

Yes, there are some people who are on the dole and not part of the restoration. You'll find parasites everywhere. Just as you'll find gadflies and shit-stirrers.

Paul claims he didn't know what was written by others under his name. The hatred stems 3 decades.I would think during a bathroom break he would read an issue that bares his name and after the first bigoted article was printed he would wake up to the problem.

You correctly say that blacks and Hispanics tend to be conservative (at least socially). Is it real bigotry from other conservatives keeping them primarily with the Democrats or is it a perceived bigotry that they are continually told typifies the right?

My point was that, as a woman, my entire life I've been told that the Democrats are on my side and the Republicans are sexist, that I *ought* to be a feminist and that being a feminist required certain policy beliefs, social and economic.

So I never identified as feminist (no matter how much I am, I do not self-identify that way) because I didn't buy on to all the extraneous baggage that went with "women are not second class citizens." And being on *this* side, as a Republican when I started out and more libertarian as I discovered some breadth of political thought, I have found only that (a few idiots aside) ability is valued over gender.

The only thing that's really changed in 30 years is that now conservatives, when there is no evidence of racism, are accused of using *code*. Because without being able to color conservatives racist (or sexist or whatever) there is no way to claim that liberals particularly represent women or minority groups.

Sure. Some racists didn't leave the Democratic Party for the Repubican Party right away. Some took decades. And some never converted.

Here's a good post about it by everyone's favorite, Matt Yglesias.

A post you apparently didn't actually read, since it tells the story of two hardcore racist Democrats who remained with the party -- and were cheerfully accepted by it -- until the late 70s and early 80s, and who never switched to the Republican Party. Just like Robert Byrd. Yglesias goes on to point out that this was common, and that even during the Reagan years there were still plenty of old-school racist Democrats in positions of power.

The racists didn't switch parties -- the racist anti-black Democrats just eventually died or retired and were replaced by racist anti-white Democrats, that's all. The Republicans gained the South because the Democrats rejected social conservatism and support for the military and embraced policies of anti-white discrimination -- not because the Republicans supported discrimination against blacks, which of course they didn't then and don't now.

Cedarford doesn't live here and he doesn't know shit about who is and isn't working to rebuild the city.

The fact that Cedarford's posts aren't often criticized might convey the impression that people agree with what he's saying. I suspect the truth is that few people actually bother to read them, since they're usually pretty long and invariably boil down to "Jews and racial minorities are bad". You could have just put a period after the word "shit" and been dead on.

I am afraid that I can't place it. Is Delaware by chance near Charleston? I'm going back to Charleston where I belong. I want peace. I want to see if somewhere there isn't something left in life of charm and grace. Do you know what I'm talking about?

A post you apparently didn't actually read, since it tells the story of two hardcore racist Democrats who remained with the party -- and were cheerfully accepted by it -- until the late 70s and early 80s, and who never switched to the Republican Party.

Sorry I didn't completely summarize the article in advance for you, Rev. :)

I posted the article because I thought you would appreciate having a little more ammunition you could use against Democrats. I was throwing you a bone. Next time you do your Robert Byrd thing, you'll have a little more material to work with.

But we still both know the big picture, don't we?

If I had less respect for you, I would say "no, you don't." But I know you do. You haven't fooled yourself, even as you try to fool me. It's not going to work.

I was living in LA at the time of the riots. It was widely reported then that the larger black community pressured the rioters to eass off so the postal service (which had suspended operations) could deliver welfare checks. I remember seeing an LA Times photo of a crowd trying to pick up their checks in person. Paul might not have been particularly sensitive in drawing attention to the matter but he was hardly racist.

Duscany said...I was living in LA at the time of the riots. It was widely reported then that the larger black community pressured the rioters to eass off so the postal service (which had suspended operations) could deliver welfare checks. I remember seeing an LA Times photo of a crowd trying to pick up their checks in person. Paul might not have been particularly sensitive in drawing attention to the matter but he was hardly racist.

Duscany, please pay attention. Ron Paul is a medical doctor who has delivered thousands of children, he's not merely a congressman. As he stated, after he left congress he returned to a full and busy medical practice and allowed others to takeover, write and edit a journal he had established but had abandoned.

Your comments about the LA riots, black welfare recipients might be correct but the more radical comments attributed to Ron Paul were not written by him and have been repeatedly repudiated by him for 10 years.

Now let's ask Obama to repudiate the comments of the pastor of his church Jeremiah Wright. When is the pressure going to be put on him?

Oh, my posts are read Revenant, and any one questioning how the Jewish communists helped win the debate against the Booker T Washington "self-improvement" "self-reliance" forces has but to read the NAACP history since NYC Jews founded it in 1909 to "teach blacks socialist and Marxist ideals".

As for Beth, no one said creoles were NOLA parasites anymore than the black middle class is part of that government-dependent underclass, Beth.

Paul is actually from Pittsburgh originally. There are, of course, many racists from the North and many non-racists from the South, but if Ms. Althouse is portraying Paul's alleged Southernness as a reason to be suspicious of him, the fact is that he is not a native Southerner and did not, I believe, grow up in the South.

Given NR's history (Glass and Beauchamp come to mind). their hostility to Paul and the sketchy nature of the quotes (there seems to be a lot of characterizations and "...") I'm surprised Althouse and everyone is taking this so seriously.

Paul has been a congressman for years. Are we to suppose this closet "racism" was hidden to his political opponents? Doubtful. Research will disclose these charges have been brought up and dismissed, and that NR has done nothing more than the recycle old garbage.

And I don't like Paul. But I think it funny that you can advocate crazy positions like Drug legalization and thats OK, but don't badmouth Abe Lincoln - thats beyond the pale.

Ron Paul's claim that he didn't know what was in the newsletter is a little questionable given that the December 1990 edition -- the same one that refers to MLK as a child molester -- contains what appears to be a Christmas greeting from Paul and "My wife Carol"

Ann, you said:You are not a native American. Why do you assume you channel the beliefs of others?

This sounds like someone who's angry and clearly I understand you and Sullivan go back and forth at each other, but this was unnecessary and ironic in a post about racism, sounding somewhat xenophobic.

For a foreigner like Sullivan to denigrate others as fakes & frauds is a hilarious case of projection. He is the phoniest specimen of liberal nitwittery calling himself a conservative in the country, and not even an Amcit.

I realize that this isn't exactly the place to come for skeptical inquiry, but no one should take the statements from "Beth" seriously. Read up on what actually went on to see why. Assuming she's just a passive observer (and not, for instance, someone profiting from the situation there), she doesn't have a clue about the wider issue.

How dare anyone call Althouse "xenophobic". She loves the British Booze hound, Xopher Hitchens. Not only is Hitch British, he's Jewish, and HItchens Heroes include Trotsky, George Bush and Johnnie Walker.

Charles Johnson and the Freepers (hmm, could be a band title in the works) broke the story way before TNR did, as far back as early November. This is old news for those of on the right who tried to make an issue out of it months ago and failed because no one was listening. (Kos hopped on the bandwagon a while later; no one listened to him, either, which was all the more exceptional because it was the first time I'd ever seen LGF agree with DKos on anything).

Lynch, the reason no one picked up on it earlier is because no one cares about a nobody Congresscritter from Texas and occasional third-party Presidential candidate -- or, if they did care, no one expected better of him. It was only after people started taking him seriously that he got the level of scrutiny he deserved. As for why the Republicans "let this guy stay so long," well, not much they can do about it, is there? Can a party expel a member, or strip a candidate of the right to run under their name? (I'm not being snarky - I really don't know).

Ann, you said:You are not a native American. Why do you assume you channel the beliefs of others?

This sounds like someone who's angry and clearly I understand you and Sullivan go back and forth at each other, but this was unnecessary and ironic in a post about racism, sounding somewhat xenophobic.

Oh, I think in the very specific context in which she's using it, it is NOT xenophobic, and she is even throwing out a point that's worth considering.

Regardless, I question that "xenophobic" is the right word, anyway, even within the point you're making.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Ron Paul grew up in western Pennsylvania, hardly the Northeast, and especially, at the time of his upbringing, what is commonly meant by The Northeast these days.

As for Delaware ... well, I could write a lot about that one. I don't know that I'd call it South, but I know what Althouse must be referring to. She would have left there just a few years before I arrived, which in turn was on the cusp of the fight over court-ordered desegregation of Delaware's schools, which, after years of battle and mounting vitriol, finally launched my senior year in high school.

And I can remember some VERY unpleasant experiences in the '80s, when I dated an African-American man and also a man who wasn't actually African-American, but, you know, some people don't bother to make distinctions in the midst of all their discriminations.

And don't even get me started about a certain Maryland county in which I worked and which was just adjacent to--a hop-skip-jump from the Delaware county in which I resided.

My own, personal, pivotal education in race relations began in a small town in Illinois (and not the southern part, near Missouri, either), about an hour from where, coincidentally, from where I live now.

I'm willing to read long, interesting posts or short, inane posts, but I draw the line at slogging through 2500 words only to discover that the punchline is, once again, "the commie New York Jews are to blame".

Certainly not Ron Paul. If you actually look at his policy proposals, you'll find that he's advocating over a trillion dollars in tax cuts and only hundreds of billions in spending cuts. He hasn't got the balls to advocate eliminating Medicare and Social Security, which is what would really need to be done to pay for his tax cuts. On top of that he advocates converting Social Security from pay-as-you-go to an investment system, which may be financially responsible in the long run but in the short run adds an additional couple of hundred billion dollars to the deficit, per year, for several decades.

So if you're concerned about the debt, vote for Ron Paul... if you're concerned that it isn't big enough yet, I mean.

I find it funny and not in a ha ha sort of manner that the people who bash Dr. Paul have never took the time to inform themselves by visiting his official website. Because if they had they would have to read the article which clearly interates that LIBERTY is the cure for rascism, and that people should not be judged by groups but as individuals. As far as being from the former segregated south think about this..... President Bush is from the former segregated south as is former president Bill Clinton and who ever pegged them as rascist? Take time inform yourself and visit his website before you pass judgement on the man. Just a little food for thought.

As far as the civil war being a mistake it was it was a war that should have never been fought. The civil war had very little to do with slavery the civil war was about STATES RIGHTS over the federal government. Read a history book, sheesh. Slavery was on its way out the door and the north was not innocent either and lets bare in mind that the last slaves were freed in Maryland in 1867. Dont believe me check the historical record and i dont mean a history book littered with propaganda i mean the actual record. Slavery was just a sub issue in the civil war and not the reason the south seceeded from the union

As the wife of a great Democratic president once said "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor RooseveltIt is disappointing to search for discussions on the political issues and continuously run across armchair political analysts who fervently believe that journalists write the gospel truth without underlying motivations or agendas. Of course, this phenomenon usually occurs when the journalist's writings agrees with the person's own beliefs. I truly thank you for your blog and wish you well - however, I am looking for more than the usual ad hominem Ann Coulter style witch hunt for stains on a blue dress.

This was also printed in The New Republic on NH polling day.-It looks like a twelve year old tried to forge it. TNR has since pulled the links, because This one pretty much prooves all the other trash to be concocted as well. This one references the other three. It was copied on the same xerox machine, same highlighter, etc. Great 'Journalism' TNT-This is Criminal Libel. The other 'letter' that they dont want linked anymore (however, its still on their server)http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdfWhat does the 'Law Professor'think?

...and he's secretly trying to start a race war? a secession? A hemp empire? A Nazi revival? A 9-11 blame game? and pandering to 'truther' kooks? C'mon folks, get your paranoid theories straight, and get back to me in the morning!

...I'll check back to see what the Law professor thinks of those 'fund raising letters' acquired by The New Republic..

Hillary Picks La Raza Leader As Campaign Co ChairThu, 04/12/2007 The former president of an extremist group that organized many of the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches and advocates the return of the American Southwest to Mexico will co-chair Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.Best known for his radical pro Chicano work during 30 years as president of the National Council of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre is being promoted by the Clinton campaign as a prominent Hispanic activist who will lead the New York senator's outreach to Hispanic voters.The reality is that Yzaguirre alienates many American citizens of Hispanic descent (in other words, those qualified to vote) with his so-called La Raza rhetoric, which has been repeatedly labeled racist.The National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, but it caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan.The takeover plan is referred to as the "reconquista" of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan.While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful (thanks to Hillary's new campaign co-chair) and annually receives millions of dollars in federal grants. Its leaders also managed to get included in congressional hearings regarding immigration. Last year alone, the National Council of La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grants and one senator gave the group an extra $4 million in earmarked American taxpayer dollars.The organization uses the money to support projects like a Southern California elementary school with a curriculum that specializes in bashing America and promoting the Chicano movement. The school's founder and principal, a Calexico-educated activist named Marcos Aguilar, opposes racial integration and says Mexicans in the U.S. don't want to go to white schools or drink from white water fountains.

How dare anyone call Althouse "xenophobic". She loves the British Booze hound, Xopher Hitchens. Not only is Hitch British, he's Jewish, and HItchens Heroes include Trotsky, George Bush and Johnnie Walker. 10:35 PM

rocean, are you jealous because Hitchens is taking Johnnie away from you? Because you must be drunk. Hitchens is Jewish? Since when?

And even if he is Jewish by birth or ancestry, which is news to me, had it escaped you that he is a celebrated atheist?

I didn't recall you as a freakjob, rocean, but you are working on your merit badge, I can see that.

Cedarford:

blah blah blah blah Jewy Jews

2 questions:

1) Why do you never identify anyone by their religion except Jews?

2) What is your religious faith and that of your parents? What is your ethnic background? Not knowing, y'see, it is hard to call you by a proper epithet. No doubt you are neither Jewish nor a communist, but other than that it seems wide open.